MVMO ABUSE CASE IN

NEWCASTLE, UK

Sponsored link.

Christopher Lillie and Dawn Reed were nurses at the Shieldfield Nursery that was run by
the Newcastle Council in North-East England. A mother reported to social workers that her
son might have been abused. Christopher Lillie was then suspended. Parents with children
at the nursery began to share experiences; this was facilitated by a number of voluntary
groups who were linked to social workers who were prominent in previous abuse
panics (e.g. Nottingham and Cleveland). Sexual and
physical abuse accounts accumulated. Some suggestions of ritual abuse emerged:
charges of supplying children to a local pedophile ring for abuse; child
pornography photos and movies; torturing child victims, etc. The Daily Mail
reported: "Some depths of human depravity simply defy belief...Children as
young as 2 were repeatedly molested by staff and...supplied to paedophiles for
filmed sex sessions...In scenes of almost unimaginable horror, rapist
paedophiles dressed as clowns or animals slashed terrified toddlers with knives."
5

A local pediatrician made numerous
abuse diagnoses in spite of the complete absence of physical evidence -- signs
that would have had to be present if the abuse had happened.

Then a young female nurse, Dawn Reed, was implicated as well. The local
council, conducted a disciplinary hearing which concluded the children had been
abused. From the many children and multiple bizarre abuse allegations, only a few charges were laid. These included
11 counts of indecently assaulting five girls and a boys. Chris LIllie was also
charged with raping a girl.

The case went to trial in 1994-JUN. The Judge, Mr. Justice Holland, decided that the
evidence was unreliable. Both defendants were acquitted. Some of the parents stormed the
dock and attempted to attack the defendants. They marched through the streets of Newcastle
with banners proclaiming "Believe the Children" and "We believe
the kids". A public inquiry and financial compensation was demanded.

The Council was in a difficult position, because they had already concluded
that the pair were guilty, and the costs of compensating over 100 children would
be immense. They decided to appoint an internal independent inquiry - a review
team. Four experts working two days a week for two years ran up a bill of £400,000
(about $670,000 USF) while preparing a report on the fiasco. 1

The media had repeatedly named the two workers as abusers since their
acquittal by the court. They were presumed guilty by many of the citizens of Newcastle;
there lives and professional careers were damaged beyond repair.

Sponsored link:

"Abuse in the Early Years." report:

In 1998-NOV, more than four years after the women's acquittal, the review
team of:

Roy Wardell, a former director of social services for Barnsley
Motropolitan Borough Council

issued their report: "Abuse in the Early Years." It "accused the
pair of being members of a paedophile ring." The report's authors "claimed
[that the two nurses] used their positions to groom young children for rape and
abuse by themselves and other members of the ring." 2

Christopher Lillie, 37, and Dawn Reed, 31, sued both the council and the
review team for libel. The team and council defended their report, claiming that
it was covered by qualified privilege. The nurses also sued the publishers of
the Newcastle Chronicle newspaper for libel. That action was settled out
of court.

The libel trial started on 2002-JAN-14 and lasted for 73 days. It was heard
by Mr. Justice Eady in a trial without jury. It generated more than ten thousand
pages of transcript. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Adrienne Page QC, said the report "accused
Chris and Dawn of the most serious and repugnant crimes it is possible to
imagine. All the more abhorrent for relating to very young children of two or
three years old whose care was entrusted to them." Miss Page told the judge
that the report was released into the public domain without warning in "what
we suggest was an act of extraordinary irresponsibility and callous
indifference...Publication of this report was utterly devastating and ruinous
for Chris and Dawn and their respective families." 2

Mr. Justice Eady ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded Lillie and Reed
£200,000 pounds each. This is the maximum allowed by law. He upheld their claim
against the four report authors, saying that they had "forfeited" the
protection of qualified privilege because they were "malicious in the
promulgation of their report..."That is because they included in their
report a number of fundamental claims which they must have known to be untrue
and which cannot be explained on the basis of incompetence or mere carelessness."
The judge rejected the plaintiffs' claim against Newcastle City Council because
they had a defense of qualified privilege. 4 Mr Justice Eady
announce that they "merited an award at the highest permitted level"
against the four authors of a report which contained "untrue" allegations
of the "utmost gravity". He said: "Indeed, they have earned it several
times over because of the scale, gravity and persistence of the
allegations...What matters primarily is that they are entitled to be vindicated
and recognized as innocent citizens who should, in my judgment, be free to exist
for what remains of their lives untouched by the stigma of child abuse."
4

Solicitor Richard Osborne said that Mr Lillie and Ms Reed had not only proved
their innocence but had shown that the authors of the report calling them "child
abusers" were dishonest and motivated by malice. "Complete vindication is
what Chris Lillie and Dawn Reed have sought from this court and what they now
have by the judgment of this court....This is an appalling story not just for
Chris and Dawn but for all the parents and children at Shieldfield Nursery who
were told that child abuse had taken place when it had not done so and who have
suffered terribly over the past nine years....It is hoped that lessons will be
learnt from this appalling tragedy, by councils, social workers and all others
involved in the protection of children."

Later, the review team said in a statement they were "shocked and upset"
by the judge's finding that they acted with malice. They said they undertook
their inquiry in the "spirit of public duty" and wished it to be known
that they had never sought to mislead anyone. They are considering an appeal.

Newcastle City Council leader Tony Flynn said: "For more than a decade,
the people of Newcastle have felt the distress of all those close to the
events... In our desire to address the parents' concerns and to show our
commitment to protecting and supporting all children in our care, the council,
acting in unity, did what we genuinely believed to be the best at that time."

The council's chief executive Ian Stratford said that the case had cost
£600,000. He added: "We expect that to escalate significantly to something in
excess of £4 million....The important point here is that the council took the
decision to support parents and children and respond to the mood of the public
at the time....This is an expensive case and the monies will need to be found
initially from insurance and thereafter they will be a cost pressure on the
budget." 4

Ramifications eight years later:

Dr. Camille De San Lazaro examined children who were expected of having
been abused in the Newcastle case. She provided information for the Abuse
in Early Years report -- the document that resulted in nurses Reed and
Lilley suing various individuals and organizations for libel. The Press
Association states that Dr Lazaro testified under cross-examination
during the nurses' libel trial that there were deficiencies and inaccuracies
in the recording in the Child Protection medical records. She conceded that
there were inconsistencies between medical records and medical reports.

She is now a consultant pediatrician and senior lecturer at Newcastle
University. On 2005-APR-25, a "fitness to practice"
hearing before the General Medical Council [GMC] began. 7 The hearing took three
weeks." Dr. Lazaro denied that she engaged in a
serious professional misconduct. The Daily Telegraph reported"

"At the libel trial, the judge, Mr Justice Eady, had said that 'where
physical findings were negative or equivocal, Dr Lazaro was prepared to
make up the deficiencies by throwing objectivity and scientific rigour
to the winds in a highly emotional misrepresentation of the facts'."

"Dr Lazaro herself had admitted that some of her work was
'inappropriate', 'irresponsible' and 'unprofessional'. The GMC
concluded that the evidence reached the threshold that would permit them
to find her guilty of serious professional misconduct. And yet, they let
her off after a colleague, Dr Christopher Hobbs, pleaded that she was
overworked and under stress."

"Such a decision is troubling for those facing charges of sexual and
other kinds of child abuse. Unreliable evidence from social workers and
doctors often lies behind allegations that turn out to be false. Medical
experts often give opinions in court without even having seen the child
or carer, using inaccurate hospital records as the basis for conclusions
that have a shattering effect on the lives of the accused. Yet it
appears that they cannot be held accountable if they can plead
tiredness and overwork - even if they are being paid large fees for
their expert opinions." 8

If the GMC had found her guilty of serious professional conduct, it is
possible that her name could have been removed from the medical register, thus
ending her career.